Share this story

Further Reading

A Sacramento, California, man was sentenced Thursday to over three years in prison for unlawful manufacture of a firearm and one count of dealing firearms.

Last year, Daniel Crowninshield pleaded guilty to those counts in exchange for federal prosecutors dropping other charges. According to investigators, Crowninshield, known online as "Dr. Death," would sell unfinished AR-15 lower receivers, which customers would then pay for him to transform into fully machined lower receivers using a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill. (In October 2014, Cody Wilson, of Austin, Texas, who has pioneered 3D-printed guns, began selling a CNC mill called "Ghost Gunner," designed to work specifically on the AR-15 lower.)

"In order to create the pretext that the individual in such a scenario was building his or her own firearm, the skilled machinist would often have the individual press a button or put his or her hands on a piece of machinery so that the individual could claim that the individual, rather than the machinist, made the firearm," the government claimed in its April 14 plea agreement.

Under federal law, it is allowed to manufacture your own firearm (even with a CNC mill), but it is not allowed to do so for others without proper licensing.

In a Thursday statement, Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said that Crowninshield "owned and operated a machine shop where he allowed customers with unknown backgrounds to use his machinery to unlawfully manufacture firearms for profit. That activity posed a very dangerous threat to the safety of our communities."

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Looks like Crowninshield isn't too bright. He calls him self Dr. Death, a clear reference to what Jack Kevorkian was called and he basically had the same MO. Set everything up and then let the user pull the button. Kevorkian's button killed you, and Crowninshield's button gave you a gun. Didn't work for Kevorkian, he did 8 years of a 10-25 year.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

You mean like people with cars and trucks that can be driven into crowds?

The primary use of a car is to facilitate efficient transportation of people and goods.

A gun has a single intended use: to destroy. That's not a negative thing as guns destroy animals for food/sport, people for protection, targets for sport, etc.

Almost anything can be re-purposed and made into a device that destroys or kills in some form, but understand that 'to destroy' (whether for great or terrible things) is the only function of a gun.

(This comes from someone who is pro-gun although I don't currently own one. Also, please read beyond 'to destroy' if you're inclined to insta-downvote)

The primary use is irrelevant. In the end pretty much anyone can hop into a car or truck and drive it into a crowd of people, and actually do more harm, much more easily. It's an important point to make when anti-gun people start talking about regulating away "killing devices." You're getting a down vote because you missed that very obvious point.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Disclaimer, I am a licensed Firearms dealer and manufacturer.

The problem with your discussion of the phrase "Well Regulated" is that you are trying to use modern usage of theyerms to understand a basically 200 year old phrase.

Well regulated when applied to the Militia means that they are to be trained and armed. The Militia consisted of all free men of military age and beyond, and owned their own weapons. Wespons which, btw, were at the cutting edge of firearm technology at the time, including cannons, so please do not come back and say the 2nd amendment is about muskets as though muskets were cheap sub par old equipment.

So what the 2nd really says is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Or colloquiallyA trained and equipped civilian populace is nescessary to keep our nation free, so the right of the populace to keep/own, train and use firearms shall not be infringed.

It was in response to the decline on firearm marksmanship and ownage in that lead to the creation of the civilian marksmanship program by Congress.

I would just like to add that even if the reasons for the second amendment have changed, since the clause has not been amended, the right remains as originally intended. You can argue that the 2nd amendment is out of data and no longer appropriate, but unless you can convince enough people to actually amend the constitution, it's an academic argument and not relevant to how the constitution should be applied in it's current form. The constitution is a legal document. It doesn't change just because some people don't like what it says and some politicians find it inconvenient. If that were the case then none of our rights have any more meaning than the current interpretation, which would make them privileges, not rights.

This sub-headline is actually quite misleading. Crowninshield's defense argument was that allowing others to manufacture was what he was doing (and he was simply operating a machine shop). Which is completely legal. If the Court had agreed with him, he'd be a free man.

What the court decided that Crowninshield was doing was manufacturing firearms himself and selling them, without possessing any of the required licenses or following any of the required procedures (like serial number engraving and record keeping). Which is illegal.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Yes but well regulated applies to the militia. It has nothing to do with the people and the arms and the bearing and the tight jeans and cowboy boots.

You, and most people that are anti-gun, simply don't understand what that sentence is saying. The people come before the militia. The people are the militia. That they can then be regulated into a fighting force to defend the country is secondary. The right of the people to bear arms is primary. During the revolution many, if not most, militia were already armed Americans. Also consider that the "security of a free state" includes freedom that could be denied to Americans by their own state. Think about it and look into the history.

Also consider looking into how written English of that period differs to today. Sentences were often long with many preceding points.

You are furiously arguing against something I am not saying, and then you lengthily say exactly what I said in the quote to teach me the true facts that I already stated in your quote of me. Next you claim I am anti gun when I am pretty sure every post I just made is specifically not anti gun. Even though I said nutcases and criminals should not have guns that does not make me anti gun. It makes me sensible like 90% of Americans.

Coffee then read is my prescription.

Either the quoting function is not operating correctly or someone did their own quote editing to throw things off. My quoted comment wasn't meant for you.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

To sell a gun you have to register yourself with the state, because it's legal to have a gun, not be able to sell one. What the prosecution claimed here, and this man accepted when he pleaded guilty was that he was selling a gun without registering with the proper authorities.

Both sides of the gun issue can argue till they're blue in the face, but the Constitutional Framers left ample historic evidence and speeches showing that they clearly intended for the Constitution to prevent state and federal governments from messing with citizen's right to be as heavily armed as possible. It was an issue they felt so strongly about that they made it number two in their bill of rights.

No matter how you feel about guns there is only one way in which the right can be removed.

By creating a new constitutional amendment to nullify the 2nd amendment.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

The running amock rate will literally not change. If you want it to then instead of throwing our basket cases into jail we need to bring back the Asylums and a nice permanent solution under psychiatric care. Yes, we blame God Emperor Raygun for letting the crazies out of Arkham and shifting the burden onto the jails.

It's a good thing Obama fixed it back when he had control of both houses of Congress. Wasn't that when he stopped cell phone spying and created greater transparency in government and closed Guantanamo and fixed student loan debt and stopped all the wars and all those other hope and change things?

He didn't? Color me shocked. Well, I'm sure President Hillary will fix them. After all, she did win the popular vote.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

I have operated arms as of age 4. My natural inclination is to regulate the arms with reasonable restrictions. Like not in bars, no guns for mental cases, nice computerized tracing systems. But I am becoming an American, and I see the other sides point that you just cannot slippery slope this right away. So maybe just criminal and nut job restrictions? It is a wild bracing feeling to have such simple rules to live by.

Militia's do not keep you safe. There's an idea that they might, but when you look at gun violence, innocent bystander, police militarization and increased suicide statistics and compare them to other western nations without guns it becomes pretty clear that gun ownership is not keeping you safe.

I'm all for allowing long guns for hunting. But hand guns should be severely regulated. You should not be getting one without demonstrating true need, receiving strict training, and having it tracked and traceable. Allowing free wheeling ownership of handguns just makes society less safe.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

I have operated arms as of age 4. My natural inclination is to regulate the arms with reasonable restrictions. Like not in bars, no guns for mental cases, nice computerized tracing systems. But I am becoming an American, and I see the other sides point that you just cannot slippery slope this right away. So maybe just criminal and nut job restrictions? It is a wild bracing feeling to have such simple rules to live by.

Your government has seized power through money instead, while giving "their own" bigger and better guns than you. If you use your puny side arm you will be labelled a "terrorist" and thrown into the darkest hole they can find (perhaps somewhere on Cuba?).

I understand the historial perspective, but the world has changed. There is no reason for individuals to hold firearms anno 2017, except for sports (in which case the weapons can be regulated and kept at clubs/ranges) or hunting (in which case only few firearms are suited, and weapons like the AR-15 are not included).

No, wait. There is in fact one reason. The "because others have them" argument seems valid. At least until you realize that the best way to remove that argument is to remove guns altogether...

No. You allow citizens to be armed so they know how to shoot. This makes them better at militia.

For instance, at one point British peasants were real good at longbow because lots of forests and hunting. They were crushing it on the battlefield.

Later, less hunting, more farming, nobody using longbows even though mandated. They got crushed on the battlefield.

Now I know you are a typical American that lets the 1% do all the fighting and dying for their country. I am too. Try to imagine that this amendment is for them and the other 49% that feel like them.

The term 'well-regulated' is archaic 18th century English, it doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations, as it would in modern 21st century English.

It means 'functioning well', as in the best way for a militia to functional well.

As well, the term 'arms' in 18th century English specifically applies to military weapons, not deer rifles.

A translation of the 2nd Amendment from 18th English to 21st English would be something like "In order for the militia system to function well, citizens' rights to have military weapons can not be interfered with by the federal or state governments."

Looks like Crowninshield isn't too bright. He calls him self Dr. Death, a clear reference to what Jack Kevorkian was called and he basically had the same MO. Set everything up and then let the user pull the button. Kevorkian's button killed you, and Crowninshield's button gave you a gun. Didn't work for Kevorkian, he did 8 years of a 10-25 year.

That's why you do it the legal way. Cody Wilson, a law student, decided to do just that. He's pretty radical, but it's a fascinating story. (the narrator makes several mistakes, so just ignore those bits )

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

You mean like people with cars and trucks that can be driven into crowds?

The primary use of a car is to facilitate efficient transportation of people and goods.

A gun has a single intended use: to destroy. That's not a negative thing as guns destroy animals for food/sport, people for protection, targets for sport, etc.

Almost anything can be re-purposed and made into a device that destroys or kills in some form, but understand that 'to destroy' (whether for great or terrible things) is the only function of a gun.

(This comes from someone who is pro-gun although I don't currently own one. Also, please read beyond 'to destroy' if you're inclined to insta-downvote)

I would add to that, in saying that cars are constantly redesigned to reduce the number of people who die as a result of car use. Moves to do something similar with firearms (in particular smartguns) are vilified.

Nothing has been done to prevent someone getting into their car or truck and driving it into a crowd of people.

When it comes to firearms, you can not reduce the number of casualties a gun is capable of when it is used in a mass shooting incident without limiting it's ability to fire a reasonable number of bullets. The best way you can prevent mass casualties in such a situation is to limit all guns to loading and firing one shot at a time, like the old flintlock rifles.

The problem with that is that you would then have a situation that is not in accordance with what the 2nd ammendment was intending to achieve, since the military and police would no doubt still have access to modern semi and automatic rifles. The deterrence from "tyranny" would not be reasonably possible with a populace using flintlock rifles.

well they need to close that loop hole, but thats never gonna happen with the NRA in charge of making gun laws.one of my best friends is a felon, with a violent past that collects ghost guns.of course he says they belong to his wife.......yeah right.he has 3 AR-15's that he ordered part by part from the net, then he assembled them in his kitchen.its ridiculous how easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun in this country.

but that will never change as long as the NRA lobbiests are in charge.

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands........ok, its a deal.

Obviously you don't think felons should have guns, but your final quote came/comes from from law abiding citizens. Seems to me like you have a problem with them owning guns too.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia that is maintained by the state. Not the individual

Even if you are correct that they intended this to benefit a well regulated, state run militia, the historical context of this being an individual right is clear. So at best you are arguing that they felt individual firearm ownership provided benefits to start run militias. Regardless of if the reasoning for the establishment of the right remains, the right remains because that clause of the constitution has not been amended to remove it.Would you be ok with all of our other rights being infringed upon just because the situations have changed from when the bill or rights has been ratified? If you feel the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed, then gather up the support of all the people that agree with you and attempt to amend the constitution. Until then it remains an individual right as it was when ratified.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

On the other hand it could be viewed as a gun safety issue. We don't want poorly made weapons.

Maybe one of our lurking constitutional lawyers can comment with a realistic opinion.

Let me clarify that for you.

Quote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well regulated Militia does not equal "anyone can make firearms for anybody else with or without a license." At least not yet. Who knows what interpretation the courts will put on this vague amendment next.

The message here is that the feds don't play, plus it is much safer to go after non-hoodrats. The streets are not any "safer" because this guy was shut down, as rifles are seldom used in armed robberies and such, nor do the criminals want to go to any effort to attain their weapons. You can order the 80% lower and machining jig from Ares anyway, and it's all legal. I do think 3 years in prison for a first offense is a bit steep. Until we focus on the criminal and psycho though, and continue to blame inanimate objects for their abuse, nothing will really change.

Federal law allows a person to build a firearm for personal use, provided the person can legally own the firearm and does not ever sell or transfer it.

The person would have to finish the machine operations on the lower receiver themselves.The lower receiver is the "firearm" because it contains the Fire Control Group, consisting of the trigger mechanism and associated parts.

Technically, if the person dies, the firearm would then need to be relinquished to law enforcement or destroyed.

This guy was basically performing the machine work for his customers, a big no-no.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

All commercially manufactured guns are required to have a serial number, the manufacturer required to keep records of guns manufactured and sold, and the weapons sold through a federally licensed firearms dealer. If you manufacture a weapon yourself for your own personal use, no serial number or records keeping is required, but then you may never sell that weapon to anyone else.

In legal terms, the AR-15 lower receiver carries the serial number, so legally, that is the "gun", even though it may be nothing more than a oddly shaped piece of metal by itself. You can buy all the other parts without going through a federally licensed dealer, but without the lower receiver, they do not count as a gun. You can buy an partly finished, unserialized lower receiver, and finish it yourself (basically it requires a trivial amount of machine work to remove a bit of metal and drill some holes), and this counts as manufacturing a weapon for personal use, and will never require a serial number, but you can never sell it.

This guy was selling unfinished lower receivers, hence no serial number and no record keeping, and then using what he thought was a legal fig leaf via having the customer push start on the CNC mill to cover the fact that he was completing the manufacture of the weapon for the customer.

I did find it amusing he thought the legal fig leaf would actually work. He owns the equipment, he loads the machine, he programs the machine. Literally the only thing the customer did was press the button. Did he really think the courts would buy the argument that the customer made the gun and not him, when he did 99% of the work?

I don't think it's 100% clear where the line is drawn between making a firearm and helping another make a firearm. This case wasn't decided on its merits, so the issue is no clearer. In San Diego, he would likely of lost but in Wyoming the outcome may have been different.

The term 'well-regulated' is archaic 18th century English, it doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations.

It means 'functioning well', as in the best way for a militia to functional well.

The word "regulated" is used three times in the Constitution. The two times in in Article I, Section 8 both mean to control or govern. It's nonsensical to understand the third time to mean something else.

It meant "well governed" as written. Had they intended to exclude the meaning of "well governed" they'd have chosen a different word.

What does it mean for Militia to be well regulated? That's also explained in Article I, Section 8. (Powers of Congress.)

Quote:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It's a start, unfortunately one has to wonder how many nut jobs got one of these.Anyone who thinks they need a semi or full auto for hunting shouldn't be hunting. The skill is in a single shot. With the proliferation of these style of firearms the consequences of an individual going rogue get scarier by the day. Those that say if more people are armed will deter said nut jobs have never been in a live fire situation, and in such a situation the odds of collateral damage, (nice cop out phrase) escalate.

Not everyone is concerned with "the skill is in a single shot" when they go hunting. Pig hunting, for example, is often more about killing as many as you can since they are invasive species in America.

As for the threat of unlawful use of a emi-auto weapons, then you would also have to include pistols if you are afraid of people "going rouge."

Of course there is deterrence in a situation where plenty of responsible people are armed. That anyone would even dare argue that point is ridiculous. You would then have to say that criminals are not deterred by armed police. That said, you can never stop all cases of someone wanting to do others harm and you can not eliminate the risk of someone innocent being unintentionally hurt. It happens with police and yet no one will argue that police should be unarmed, except maybe in the odd case of the U.K.

I mean, you're right in the first and second paragraphs - there are lots of different kinds of hunting and reasons for guns, they are tools and pistols are a bigger issue in normal, non-active-shooter life, particularly with children and suicides (most common gun deaths).

The last one, however, police are there for public safety not intimidation. Are we really safer with armed cops everywhere all the time? If we're really so concerned about gov't power why are we so eager to arm them with surplus military gear? Seems inconsistent. What happens when it's armed drones? Will you be so confident in their deterrence value?

Many soldiers have commented how they were held to a higher standard in Iraq than police in the US. They aren't supposed to be an occupying force, are they? When did that happen? How many years ago was the Andy Griffith show?

The world isn't Batman and while cops need guns that doesn't mean we need them armed 24/7 and hyped up all the time. Maybe leave the gun in the car sometimes. Maybe set up those little booths like Japan so you have to interact with the community. Get out of the car and walk around. Even in America shootings aren't so common. I admire the police, I admire them more when they're brave enough not to shoot unarmed people (which, yes, they rarely do).

I know that policing often sucks and with so many guns around they feel vulnerable. But we can do better than Ferguson and Chicago and Baltimore. This isn't rocket science, it's basic Christian ethics.

It's not about gun control anymore for me. It's about a culture of fascism. Neither side can live their lives like we're surrounded by comic book villains. Yes, there are bad people out there, but compromise isn't evil.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

All commercially manufactured guns are required to have a serial number, the manufacturer required to keep records of guns manufactured and sold, and the weapons sold through a federally licensed firearms dealer. If you manufacture a weapon yourself for your own personal use, no serial number or records keeping is required, but then you may never sell that weapon to anyone else.

In legal terms, the AR-15 lower receiver carries the serial number, so legally, that is the "gun", even though it may be nothing more than a oddly shaped piece of metal by itself. You can buy all the other parts without going through a federally licensed dealer, but without the lower receiver, they do not count as a gun. You can buy an partly finished, unserialized lower receiver, and finish it yourself (basically it requires a trivial amount of machine work to remove a bit of metal and drill some holes), and this counts as manufacturing a weapon for personal use, and will never require a serial number, but you can never sell it.

This guy was selling unfinished lower receivers, hence no serial number and no record keeping, and then using what he thought was a legal fig leaf via having the customer push start on the CNC mill to cover the fact that he was completing the manufacture of the weapon for the customer.

I did find it amusing he thought the legal fig leaf would actually work. He owns the equipment, he loads the machine, he programs the machine. Literally the only thing the customer did was press the button. Did he really think the courts would buy the argument that the customer made the gun and not him, when he did 99% of the work?

I don't think it's 100% clear where the line is drawn between making a firearm and helping another make a firearm. This case wasn't decided on its merits, so the issue is no clearer. In San Diego, he would likely of lost but in Wyoming the outcome may have been different.

The issue is making money on the firearm. The exchange of money is a public record, and his customer ended up with a firearm without a serial # (read the posts above), which is also not in dispute.

The term 'well-regulated' is archaic 18th century English, it doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations.

It means 'functioning well', as in the best way for a militia to functional well.

The word "regulated" is used three times in the Constitution. The two times in in Article I, Section 8 both mean to control or govern. It's nonsensical to understand the third time to mean something else.

It meant "well governed" as written. Had they intended to exclude the meaning of "well governed" they'd have chosen a different word.

What does it mean for Militia to be well regulated? That's also explained in Article I, Section 8. (Powers of Congress.)

Quote:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I'm guessing despite purporting to represent the rights of gun owners and enthusiasts, the NRA didn't have his back on this one because his work would interfere with who they really represent: gun manufacturers.

It's a start, unfortunately one has to wonder how many nut jobs got one of these.Anyone who thinks they need a semi or full auto for hunting shouldn't be hunting. The skill is in a single shot. With the proliferation of these style of firearms the consequences of an individual going rogue get scarier by the day. Those that say if more people are armed will deter said nut jobs have never been in a live fire situation, and in such a situation the odds of collateral damage, (nice cop out phrase) escalate.

Not everyone is concerned with "the skill is in a single shot" when they go hunting. Pig hunting, for example, is often more about killing as many as you can since they are invasive species in America.

As for the threat of unlawful use of a emi-auto weapons, then you would also have to include pistols if you are afraid of people "going rouge."

Of course there is deterrence in a situation where plenty of responsible people are armed. That anyone would even dare argue that point is ridiculous. You would then have to say that criminals are not deterred by armed police. That said, you can never stop all cases of someone wanting to do others harm and you can not eliminate the risk of someone innocent being unintentionally hurt. It happens with police and yet no one will argue that police should be unarmed, except maybe in the odd case of the U.K.

I mean, you're right in the first and second paragraphs - there are lots of different kinds of hunting and reasons for guns, they are tools and pistols are a bigger issue in normal, non-active-shooter life, particularly with children and suicides (most common gun deaths).

The last one, however, police are there for public safety not intimidation. Are we really safer with armed cops everywhere all the time? If we're really so concerned about gov't power why are we so eager to arm them with surplus military gear? Seems inconsistent. What happens when it's armed drones? Will you be so confident in their deterrence value?

Many soldiers have commented how they were held to a higher standard in Iraq than police in the US. They aren't supposed to be an occupying force, are they? When did that happen? How many years ago was the Andy Griffith show?

The world isn't Batman and while cops need guns that doesn't mean we need them armed 24/7 and hyped up all the time. Maybe leave the gun in the car sometimes. Maybe set up those little booths like Japan so you have to interact with the community. Get out of the car and walk around. Even in America shootings aren't so common. I admire the police, I admire them more when they're brave enough not to shoot unarmed people (which, yes, they rarely do).

I know that policing often sucks and with so many guns around they feel vulnerable. But we can do better than Ferguson and Chicago and Baltimore. This isn't rocket science, it's basic Christian ethics.

It's not about gun control anymore for me. It's about a culture of fascism. Neither side can live their lives like we're surrounded by comic book villains. Yes, there are bad people out there, but compromise isn't evil.

Here is a hard statistic for you. You are a cop. You have your gun out and trained on a suspect. The suspect pulls a gun and shoots at you. The odds are only 50-50.

Think about that. Even under the best case scenario: you are ready with your gun, you only have a 50% chance to win. That is a brutal statistic.

When we watch movies we see two people have a stand off as if the first to shoot does not automatically win. So our mental models do not reflect reality. In reality your consciousness has been measured to lag reality by .5 to 1 second or something iirc. But we move without consciousness, our conscious makes up a story about why we moved later on. So at best you are trained to automatically shoot and at worst you only decide to shoot after conscious awareness that someone has pulled a gun and is shooting at you right now.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

It makes for an interesting philosophical discussion, but the simple fact is that none of our rights are absolute because we live in a world with other people who also have rights. When we interact it is inevitable that our rights will com in conflict. In such cases congress has some authority to regulate how that conflict will be resolved, and the role of the court becomes to make sure that the law is genuinely working to protect the rights of others and that it infringes on the rights of one person in a minimal way to stop a more serious infringement on the right of another.While not getting carelessly blown up by explosives isn't a specifically enumerated right, I think that most people will agree that it is a right.Now maybe a century or so ago we might have had a different solution. Instead of banning or very heavily regulating the use of explosives, the problem might have been dealt with after the fact in a way the would conclusively prevent the guilty culprit from doing it again and would be rather persuasive in deterring others.You carelessly kill someone else, they would look at the evidence, arrest you, try you based on the evidence, and then execute you. It would not have been considered cruel and unusual punishment, and due process would have been considered to have been served without years of appeals.We have changed things so that our right to due process is far, far more broad. We have redefined cruel and unusual punishment drastically. We have made it so that it is far harder to hold people accountable for their actions. A side effect of that is that we have to accept more restrictions on many of our other rights in order to operate as a society. It's a matter of balancing different rights against each other. As we have become less and less willing to hold people accountable or have made that accountability less harsh, we have made it necessary to weaken other rights in order to prevent abuses. Life is full of unintended consequences.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

Yes, it is legal to build your own firearm. The reason (and I'm simplifying things here) is because it is difficult to build one that is cost effective and safe. Regarding the former, one can buy in the US an AR-15 receiver for dirt cheap, as low as $50 sometimes. AR receivers are so cheap, that the primary reason for building your own is because you do not want a paper trail that connects you and the firearm, or because you are not legally able to purchase one.

Anyway, there is no gray area here: you may not manufacture for sale, and that's exactly what this person did. Just because he had the customer press a button on the CNC machine does not make it legal. Assholes like Daniel Crowninshield are precisely why we can't have nice things, and as a gun owner and 2A support I'm glad he's going to jail.

The guy got off lucky. Lucky as in he is very lucky the BATFE, FBI, and DHS didnt roll up a sniper squad and kill half his family.

See also Ruby Ridge.

And another 2nd amendment thread where people dont actually know what the 2nd amendment language means. See the post earlier in this thread by the FFL dealer.

The founders envisioned every able bodied man to be well regulated in arms. This means that every able bodied male would be trained in the use and care of military weapons, to include swords, rifles and pistols. (swords being the original "arms") Well regulated has absolutely zero to do with regulations or government rules, perversely, the 2nd amendment actually means exactly the opposite.

well they need to close that loop hole, but thats never gonna happen with the NRA in charge of making gun laws.one of my best friends is a felon, with a violent past that collects ghost guns.of course he says they belong to his wife.......yeah right.he has 3 AR-15's that he ordered part by part from the net, then he assembled them in his kitchen.its ridiculous how easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun in this country.

but that will never change as long as the NRA lobbiests are in charge.

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands........ok, its a deal.

No, there's actually a very good chance the NRA will back this decision.

The NRA is NOT a gun rights organization. They are a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturer's industry, and nothing more. Allowing people to manufacture and sell guns outside of the current lobbying ecosystem pisses off the established gun manufacturers, who see this as nothing but lost sales for themselves.

Unless this guy has the financial wherewithal to make multi-million dollar contributions to the NRA, he's going to find himself on the opposite side of the NRA's fence, except to the extent that leveraging his case for its public opinion potential aids in boosting sales of guns by licensed manufacturers.

See also "regulatory capture."

False on all accounts.

Most of the NRA's yearly revenue is membership fees from your average gun owner. They are also the top gun safety organization in this country - advocating for gun safety and proper training before anything else.

I would love for you to go to an NRA-sponsored shooting range and act just even a little suspicious or inept. You'll find yourself on the street quickly. They don't mess around with firearms safety.